I've added a vocabulary which is filled by an autocomplete field in a node.
To my unpleasant surprise its field is not even visible in the pattern configuration page of the url aliases (admin/config/search/path/patterns). The field for the standard pattern is there and so is the default pattern called "Tags". But my own created vocabulary isn't.
Furthermore, when I edit a term of my own vocabulary, and I check "automatic alias", it doesn't comply. The url remains "taxonomy/term/59". But I leave the automatic url checked out, and fill something in myself, "test" for instance, it will remain that url ("/test"). Forever. Checking "automatic url" or not. It remains "test" from now on.
Is this a bug in the latest recommended version of Pathauto? Or is this common for term reference field in a node that uses autocomplete?
Comments
Comment #1
knalstaaf CreditAttribution: knalstaaf commentedCreated a test vocabulary, started the same procedure as the problematic one as described above, and here there are no problems.
What could have gone wrong? I can't think of anything...
Comment #2
knalstaaf CreditAttribution: knalstaaf commentedWhile making a content type the first time I inserted two "reference to a term"-fields, both autocomplete and both refering to the same vocabulary. Could that have been the problem?
Sounds ridiculous maybe, but like I said: I have no idea at all.
I've created both the fields separately now, both still using the same vocabulary, and it seems to work now. Don't have a clue what went wrong - quite concerning.
Comment #3
knalstaaf CreditAttribution: knalstaaf commentedUpdate: one of the two fields is not being displayed, which may be pointing to an issue with two term reference fields using the same vocabulary within one content type (and autocomplete maybe).
I have no other explanation for it.
Can't tell whether this issue concerns another module now...
Comment #4
knalstaaf CreditAttribution: knalstaaf commentedComment #5
knalstaaf CreditAttribution: knalstaaf commentedForget post #3 and #4, forget to fill that field out in a node I was testing - it's getting too late for me :)
Comment #6
ben.kyriakou CreditAttribution: ben.kyriakou as a volunteer commentedI'm unable to replicate this issue using two autocomplete taxonomy fields pointing to the same vocabulary on a node. Since there's no clear way to create this problem and there's been no further activity here I'm going to mark this as Closed (cannot reproduce). If anyone has a replicable test case for this problem, please add further information and mark this as Active.